[SeaGypsy]

Hence my choice to move to JIT freight for employment, farming & JIT are the most essential industries. When food transport stops so does everything. My house is 10 miles from the busiest port in Australia, handling 78% of Australia's inbound shipping & 60% of exports including food for about 90 million people outside the country & 25 million inside. My primary contract is with a company which handles 25% of Tasmania's total freight volume. In two years I will own a house here & retreat in Tassie. Then I get more into sailing etc. Deflation is inflating my options because I anticipated the market based on what I learned around here over the years. In this way peakoil.com is a lifeboat as Onlooker mentioned. Not handing out winning lotto numbers, but sage advice on reality if you can noise filter.

[Ibon]

I invite you all to read Our Inner Ape from Franz de Waal.

Humans are political animals and so are our most closest relatives; Chimpanzees and Bonobos.

The book highlights with entertaining examples the political alliances and subterfuge you find in any wild chimp or bonobo troop. An Alpha male will be defeated when two rival males team up and attack him. One of those rivals becomes the Alpha but he lets his ally who helped him also mate with the females and have access to choice fruits. This alliance continues in resolving fights and conflicts. It represents the origins of human political games in our social interactions.

[ennui2]

Banding together can have a positive (hippie community) or negative (gangs/warlords) connotation.

It is still banding together as in the gang members usually do not prey on each other.

Come on now. You know that's not true.

And even if it WERE true, you're trying to spin a warlord future in a positive light on the basis that violent warlords will at least have inner-harmony? So they can rape and pillage but at least there will be some stability as long as you're part of the rapers and pillagers?

Really, some people are desperate to find silver linings. A shitty future is a shitty future, period.

[onlooker]

Not quite Ennui. I am saying that the cycle of violence can end if a group or groups recognize that together they can do better than at each others throat. That is still the logic of the gang. Even within a gang a certain solidarity and caring exist. The trick is to extend the harmony of the group outward to encompass as many as possible. Now I cannot dissuade someone like you or others if you simply do not wish to concede that humans can live together without slaughtering each other.

[ennui2]

Now I cannot dissuade someone like you or others if you simply do not wish to concede that humans can live together without slaughtering each other.

Sure I can accept that people can live together peacefully, in times OTHER than malthusian die-off events.

[ralfy]

"Teaming up" is part of survival and has been part of humanity from the start.

[ennui2]

Right, but the way the term is being applied is spun in a positive direction. Teaming up can be both positive AND negative. ISIS is teaming up. Nazi Germany is teaming up. The mob is teaming up. Teaming up is no good if you're at the point of the other team's spear.

[careinke]

thanks T, for creating the lifeboat topic. As always a diligent moderator. As for the original post, I would say the obvious answer would be to eliminate the old person, as that person has already lived almost all their natural life span. On the other hand, some may decide to eliminate the child because the child cannot in any way offer any assistant to the others. In real life, though perhaps what the occupants would decide is to eliminate that person who is least liked and most abrasive in general or the person in worse health. I personally, if I was on the boat would suggest we hold some sort of raffle or lotto to decide by pure luck who is to be eliminated.

Why not eliminate the creation of new kids and let the oldsters live out their lives? Pay for voluntary sterilization on a sliding scale, and stop subsidizing having children.

[onlooker]

thanks T, for creating the lifeboat topic. As always a diligent moderator. As for the original post, I would say the obvious answer would be to eliminate the old person, as that person has already lived almost all their natural life span. On the other hand, some may decide to eliminate the child because the child cannot in any way offer any assistant to the others. In real life, though perhaps what the occupants would decide is to eliminate that person who is least liked and most abrasive in general or the person in worse health. I personally, if I was on the boat would suggest we hold some sort of raffle or lotto to decide by pure luck who is to be eliminated.

Why not eliminate the creation of new kids and let the oldsters live out their lives? Pay for voluntary sterilization on a sliding scale, and stop subsidizing having children.

Sounds like a good plan.

[SeaGypsy]

So far the only structure enabling the billions is the one we have. One at it's core equation based on an impossible dream, but one so alluring as to draw in even the greatest minds- infinite man. Meanwhile back on earth we have already created & become dependent on the monster, now it is just a matter of lifeboat ethics in one way or the other, like it or loathe it. If you care about wilderness reserves, conservation of species, retention of natural aquifers & ecosystems, you are a lifeboat ethicist already.

[onlooker]

Very true Sea. We are in overshoot and in a matter of time Nature along with us will be making decisions of life and death upon others. In a way we are already doing that by condoning here in the US its wars. The whole friction that exists now between humans is now being fueled more and more by issues of power and scarcity. Ultimately, it can all be decided via warfare. For example what will happen with India and Pakistan and that whole area being vulnerable to drought and GW. Nobody may go peacefully into the night if they can help it.

[vox_mundi]

Here's 500 million who will be looking for a seat in that lifeboat - and they're thirsty ...

Climate-exodus expected in the Middle East and North Africa

The number of climate refugees could increase dramatically in future. Researchers of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and the Cyprus Institute in Nicosia have calculated that the Middle East and North Africa could become so hot that human habitability is compromised.

The temperature during summer in the already very hot Middle East and North Africa will increase more than two times faster compared to the average global warming. This means that during hot days temperatures south of the Mediterranean will reach around 46 degrees Celsius (approximately 114 degrees Fahrenheit) by mid-century. Such extremely hot days will occur five times more often than was the case at the turn of the millennium. In combination with increasing air pollution by windblown desert dust, the environmental conditions could become intolerable and may force people to migrate.

More than 500 million people live in the Middle East and North Africa - a region which is very hot in summer and where climate change is already evident. The number of extremely hot days has doubled since 1970. "In future, the climate in large parts of the Middle East and North Africa could change in such a manner that the very existence of its inhabitants is in jeopardy," says Jos Lelieveld, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and Professor at the Cyprus Institute.

Lelieveld and his colleagues have investigated how temperatures will develop in the Middle East and North Africa over the course of the 21st century. The result is deeply alarming: Even if Earth's temperature were to increase on average only by two degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times, the temperature in summer in these regions will increase more than twofold. By mid-century, during the warmest periods, temperatures will not fall below 30 degrees at night, and during daytime they could rise to 46 degrees Celsius (approximately 114 degrees Fahrenheit). By the end of the century, midday temperatures on hot days could even climb to 50 degrees Celsius (approximately 122 degrees Fahrenheit). Another finding: Heat waves could occur ten times more often than they do now.

In addition, the duration of heat waves in North Africa and the Middle East will prolong dramatically. Between 1986 and 2005, it was very hot for an average period of about 16 days, by mid-century it will be unusually hot for 80 days per year. At the end of the century, up to 118 days could be unusually hot, even if greenhouse gas emissions decline again after 2040. "If mankind continues to release carbon dioxide as it does now, people living in the Middle East and North Africa will have to expect about 200 unusually hot days, according to the model projections," says Panos Hadjinicolaou, Associate Professor at the Cyprus Institute and climate change expert.

The research team recently also published findings on the increase of fine particulate air pollution in the Middle East. It was found that desert dust in the atmosphere over Saudi Arabia, Iraq and in Syria has increased by up to 70 percent since the beginning of this century. This is mainly attributable to an increase of sand storms as a result of prolonged droughts. It is expected that climate change will contribute to further increases, which will worsen environmental conditions in the area.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 016-1665-6

[ralfy]

Why not eliminate the creation of new kids and let the oldsters live out their lives? Pay for voluntary sterilization on a sliding scale, and stop subsidizing having children.

There's a philosophical view related to that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

[Newfie]

Ibon,

I agree The Inner Ape is stunning.

Because we are so closely related I think it goes a long way to D's be the range of human interaction.

The differences between the Chinps and Bonobos is fascinating. Not sure where we land on that spectrum.


ELSEWISE, all the speculation on teams is interesting. I think the stronger teams will pitch the weaker teams into the ocean.

[ROCKMAN]

Folks don't move because it's hot: they move if they can't afford to keep cool. Much of the ME couldn't afford to keep cool even before temps went up. The real question remains: as the energy situation worsen how many folks will no longer be able to modify their environment to a satisfactory level? Think southern CA and the northern states.

One more reason why the Texas state govt got so strong behind wind power: we have one of the highest costs to maintain an acceptable temperature comfort level for our citizens. I grew up in south La and didn't sleep in air conditioned comfort until well past 18 yo. No desire to go back to those days despite the fact I'm much more heat tolerant then most folks. LOL.

In time there will be many looking for that last seat in the boat. Just as folks scrabbled to get the last seats on the last chopper taking off from the embassy in Saigon so long ago.

[Newfie]

Two survival stories....Shackelton and Bob Bartlett.

Shackelton was a gigolo who received financing from a banker I order to keep him out of his wife's drawers, sent him off to Antartica. He was stupid and caused the loss of the ship. It was the ships master, I think, who guided then to Elephant Ksland and was then left on Elephant Island to keep the ships party together. Shackeltons trip was miraculous, no doubt, never repeated, but he was lucky in the extreme. He had a hard job getting a ship to go rescue his crew and that was a close thing as the ice was closing in.

The crew on Elephant Island did were forlorn and depressed and did nothing to prepare for a second winter. They were drinking the alcohol used to start their Primus stoves. This crew hung together and were given over to the idea they would die together.

Bartlett undoubtedly the greatest ice pilot ever, was serving Stephenanson when the latter abandoned the ship to go hunting after he got it stuck in the ice. The ship was bound in ice and eventually crushed. Bartlett did what he could to harden the young academics but eventually failed for they all died either by circumstance, murder or suicide. Bartlett too left the group, in Wrangle Island, where there was some game. Bartlett walked with an Eskimo to Siberia where he got a ship to Alaska where he mounted a rescue effort.

The sailors, used to a hard life mostly survived. As did an Eskimo family with two little girls. When the rescue ship arrived they found the young girls capturing gulls using home made hooks. This crew fractured, so that they would not exhaust resources where they lived. The academics could not adapt, the sailors did better, the Eskimos did not thrive but survived as a family unit.

Stephanson went on to send the Arctic winter on the ice with 2 or 3 other fellows. Their other support ship had gone ahead and penetrated further before going aground. That crew had all the ships supplies, provisioned to over winter and were in rough shape when Stephanson found them. By comparison the ships crew were thin and under nourished.

In all cases two things made the difference...personal stamina with guts and knowledge. Secondly, luck.

[Subjectivist]

I invite you all to read Our Inner Ape from Franz de Waal.

Humans are political animals and so are our most closest relatives; Chimpanzees and Bonobos.

The book highlights with entertaining examples the political alliances and subterfuge you find in any wild chimp or bonobo troop. An Alpha male will be defeated when two rival males team up and attack him. One of those rivals becomes the Alpha but he lets his ally who helped him also mate with the females and have access to choice fruits. This alliance continues in resolving fights and conflicts. It represents the origins of human political games in our social interactions.

I listened to an interesting interview about the "chimp brain" and how not to let it control your choices for you today,

https://youtu.be/_JdH2lyFMRw

[Ibon]

Lifeboat ethics codified as law?

This interesting legal case in Italy where a man who was charged for shoplifting was acquitted as not even having committed a crime. The question raised here is to what extent our legal system with pardon acts of "necessity" moving forward as these crimes of necessity increase.


http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.h ... court-says

“They rarely apply the ‘state of necessity,'” Bellacosa said, and when they do, it is generally in cases “like a castaway who fights with another shipwreck victim for the last raft he has to save his life.”

ROME — Stealing food from a supermarket may not be a crime in Italy if you are homeless and hungry, the nation’s highest appeals court has ruled.In a case that has drawn comparisons to “Les Misérables,” the Supreme Court of Cassation threw out the conviction of a homeless man from Ukraine, Roman Ostriakov, who was caught trying to take 4.07 euros ($6.02) worth of cheese and sausage from a store in Genoa without paying for it. A trial court sentenced him in February 2015 to six months in jail and a fine of 100 euros.

“The condition of the defendant and the circumstances in which the merchandise theft took place prove that he took possession of that small amount of food in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment, acting therefore in a state of need,” and therefore the theft “does not constitute a crime,” the appellate court wrote in its decision.

The court’s decision went far beyond what the appeal in the case had sought.

Valeria Fazio, the prosecutor at the Genoa court where the trial was held, said in a telephone interview that her office understood that Ostriakov had stolen only out of need, and had appealed in hopes that the court might set a more lenient sentence. But the court decided that he “doesn’t have to be punished at all,” Fazio said.

The court has yet to release its full reasoning in the case, but Gherardo Colombo, a former member of the Supreme Court of Cassation, said it seemed to rely on an Italian legal doctrine: “Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.” The term is Latin for “No one is expected to do the impossible.”

Maurizio Bellacosa, a professor of criminal law at Luiss University in Italy who has often argued cases before the Court of Cassation, said that the application of that doctrine in a shoplifting case “has a certain novelty.”

[onlooker]

Maybe I am just anti-punitive but this to me is a good example. Again, in the end we humans can are social animals and as such are always having to make choices of cooperation or competition and reward or punishment. It is simply a matter of siding with the more benign form of interaction. Of consistently choosing to consider others as you would want others to consider you. As the Golden rule states "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". In terms of the lifeboat story it provides the most stark example, will we chose to act under the purview of might makes right or will we chose a more enlightened benevolent manner. Even in the survival situations we have choices, instead of eliminating the weakest why not the one least cooperative and least amicable to others.

[SeaGypsy]

Because after a certain point, discipline is gone & instincts take over. Observe how people respond to the threat of imminent violent death to get a gist of how things might appear. This year's philosopher is next year's Holy Prophet commanding genocide.